Evil Christianity
10 December 2005The Church has done some terrible things in the past. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and other events in Christianity’s history have had horrible aspects. Christians have tortured, maimed, and violently killed those with differing beliefs. Even today, televangelists and others use the name of God to reap huge profits, while priests commit horrible acts of pedophilia. Criminals use the name of God to justify their horrible crimes.
Nonbelievers often point out the carnage and death Christians have caused in the past and present. However, contrary to popular belief, these facts do not undermine Christianity. I do not wish to deny that Christians have done evil things in the past and continue to do evil things today. I do not wish for us to forget about these things, and I do not wish to rationalize them away. However, the fact of the matter is that the actions of human beings have no impact on the truth or falsity of the Christian religion. Christianity is based on historical truth, and the fact that Christians have done evil things in the past does nothing to effect whether or not the resurrection took place.
In fact, if anything the evil acts of men only confirm certain teachings in the Bible. The Bible indicates that men are evil at heart, and this seems to be the unquestionably true when one looks at what men have done in the past and present. However, the evil actions of men do not disprove historical events such as the resurrection. Therefore, it is plain to see that the atheistic argument in this case is completely irrelevant, a total non sequitir.
If you examine atheistic websites, you may observe that a large portion of the arguments against Christianity have to do with the evils committed by Christians past and present. These are not logical arguments, they are merely emotional objections to Christianity. It is often claimed that Christians hold to their belief system for purely emotional reasons. If this is so, then why are such a large amount of atheistic objections to Christianity based on nothing but emotion? This seems to be an inconsistency.
Christianity and a morbid history?
The most common attempt to justify atheism by means of evil Christian deeds is to point out the rather troubling history of the Church. The most famous examples of severe misconduct of the Church are the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Salem Witch trials. Although I believe an argument can be made that the wrongdoings of these events were not only done by Christians, and that the amount of evil performed is sometimes exaggerated, I do not really wish to get into such a comprehensive study. Nor do I wish to rationalize such events away, nor do I wish to “justify” these events.
However, I find it important to point out that these past mishaps of the Church in particular and Christianity in general do nothing to disconfirm historical realities. Christianity is a religion based on the historical truth of the resurrection. As such, it is not disproved because Christians have committed horrible deeds in the past.
On top of this, the fact that the Church participated in such activities does not mean that such things were justified by Biblical teachings. Rather, those instances in which there was severe misconduct are easily attributed to the greed and self-interest of the men involved, as well as unjustified hatred and paranoia of those who hold different beliefs.
Psychological Effects of Christian Belief?
Additionally, the supposed psychological effects of Christian belief are often pointed out. Christianity, it is charged, causes people to be irrational, ignorant, and perhaps even stupid. It is claimed that belief in the doctrine of salvation of faith alone abolishes true moral responsibility and encourages blind faith. Supposedly, Christianity leads to decreased self-confidence due to the fact that it teaches that all people are sinners and unworthy of God.
The list could go on, but there are several problems with these claims. Firstly, I am a Christian, and I feel as though I am a reasonably secure individual with good self-confidence. (It should be mentioned that being humble can also be a virtue, and the fact that I know I have fallen short causes me to be humble, while not destroying all of my self-confidence.) Additionally, despite the fact that I believe that good works are not sufficient for salvation, I feel that I am still diligent in my effort to perform good deeds. And if the doctrines of Christianity encourage blind faith, then I am certainly off the mark, as I have spent countless hours creating this website in an effort to defend the rationality of the Christian faith. Actually, it seems like Christianity as a whole has done the opposite of support “blind faith” (from what other religious viewpoint can you find such a large amount of apologetics material?).
In fact, the claim that Christianity causes psychological problems in general is quite unfounded. I am aware of absolutely no evidence that Christians or religious believers in general are more unstable. Until this sort of claim is documented with rigorous psychological studies, it should be discarded.
Secondly, even if Christianity did cause the majority of believers harsh psychological repercussions, there is no reason to think that the Christian doctrines “should” evoke such responses. If my belief in original sin abolishes any semblance of self-confidence I have, then the problem may be with me rather than with the doctrine. If I believe in “blind faith” because of the doctrine of salvation, perhaps I have missed the mark. So, even if there was a correlation between psychological instability and Christian doctrines (which is highly doubtful), it does not imply that these doctrines, properly interpreted, should result in psychological problems.
Thirdly, and most importantly, such psychological problems do not disprove history. Even if the doctrine of original sin abolishes my self-confidence, furthermore, even if it should destroy it, we still have not gotten anywhere with regard to historical truth. Christianity, being based on historical facts, could still be true. The supposed psychological repercussions of Christian belief therefore have no bearing on whether or not Christianity is factually correct.
Christianity brings out the worst in people?
Another common claim is that Christian faith brings out the worst in some individuals. Christians are arrogant, intolerable, and ignorant, purportedly. “Fundamentalists” pound the Bible and make offensive signs that read “TURN OR BURN!” Christianity also encourages us to separate from nonbelievers, which furthers intolerance and leads to intense ethnocentrism.
Again, I don’t believe Christianity has caused me to display any of the aforementioned qualities any more than I would have were I not Christian. I try not to be arrogant. Even though I am confident that my beliefs are true, I will always admit it when I make a mistake. I tolerate others just fine, and I am not involved in racism of any kind. Those who know me can probably attest that I get along with just about everybody. And although there is much I must learn, I don’t think one could label me as ignorant. I certainly do not enjoy taunting others with the phrase “you’re going to burn in hell” except as an occasional joke when the situation permits. And I know many Christians who are much more level-headed than me. So it is certainly not true that Christianity always brings out bad qualities in people. All of my bad qualities are in spite of, not because of, my Christian beliefs.
Once again, the claim that the majority (or even a significant minority) of Christians are worse people because of their belief is highly doubtful. To my knowledge, there is no evidence for such a conjecture, and thus it should be dismissed.
However, even if the majority of Christians were intolerable, arrogant, and ignorant, there is no reason to suppose that Christianity should evoke this sort of behavior. Besides, this just once again emphasizes that no human is perfect, including those who are Christians. This fundamental concept is not only unobjectionable to me, it is also positively affirmed in the Bible.
Most importantly, the bad behavioral patterns of some Christians does not affect historical truth in any way, shape, or form. What we have here is another emotional objection to Christianity, and such arguments simply won’t cut it.
Hitler was a Christian!
Of all the issues that are discussed in this article, perhaps the most hotly debated topic is the issue of Hitler’s religious persuasion. The debate over whether or not Hitler was a Christian is found all over chatrooms, message boards, and Internet articles. Atheists generally claim that Hitler was a Christian, and Christians generally claim that Hitler was an atheist. Interestingly, the truth may be that he was neither. 1 Either way, the religious persuasion of Adolf Hitler is a difficult, perhaps impossible, thing to determine.
I used to be involved heavily in the debate over whether or not Hitler was a Christian. I felt that he was an atheist, and I thought that non-theists were merely trying to shame Christianity by placing such a notorious figure in its ranks. However, I now realize that it does not really matter.
There is no doubt that Hitler was an evil man. The mere mentioning of the name Adolf Hitler often brings horrible thoughts, and for some, horrible memories. However, Hitler’s actions are not supported anywhere in the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, even if he was a Christian, there is no reason to suppose that his actions were justified. Also, once again, it must be reiterated that Hitler’s actions do nothing to affect whether or not the resurrection took place.
What about the good stuff Christians do?
Those who hold to the position of atheism are quick to point out slip-ups in Christianity’s history and the supposed psychological and character-affecting doctrines of the Bible. However, if we must suppose that bad deeds are evidence against Christianity, then are good deeds evidence for Christianity?
There are many positive things the church has done in the past and many Christians who perform great deeds. One example of a great Christian deed is found in the case of Dirk Willems, who paid the ultimate price for following his Biblically-based moral code. 2 He was executed by the Church for teaching heretical doctrines, but he gave up freedom in order to save the life of a man that wished to take him captive. Doubtless the skeptic would focus on the evil acts of the Church in this scenario, but instead we should focus on the great deed of Dirk Willems.
Furthermore, despite the fact that it is claimed that Christians have vigorously fought scientific progress, a great number of the founding fathers of scientific disciplines were in fact Christians. 3 Professor David N. Livingstone argued that “The idea that science and Christianity have constantly been loggerheads is a gross distortion of the historical record… Indeed, Robert Boyle, the great English student of chemistry, believed that scientists more than anyone else glorified God in the pursuit of their tasks because it was given to them the interrogate God’s creation.” 4
Churches and Christian Organizations have started charities, homeless shelters, and fundraisers to help the poor and unfortunate. I know that some Christian organizations near where I live have positive outreaches in the community. Many of the Christians I know are very good human beings and they all have many positive effects upon society.
So, is all of this evidence in favor of Christianity? If the evil deeds of Christians are evidence against Christianity, then surely the good deeds of Christians are evidence in favor of that worldview! Most likely, few atheists would accept this argument, and for good reasons. It’s because the simple fact that Christians have done good deeds in the past does nothing to affect historical truth. If the atheist wishes to deny that good deeds performed by Christians are evidence that Christianity is true, then they must admit that the moral choices of men have no bearing upon whether or not an historical event actually happened. Therefore, all the atheistic objections we have discussed in this article are exposed for what they are, which is a complete and total irrelevancy.
An atheist may counter that the elucidation of the evils of Christianity was not meant to disprove the worldview. But this is a sham. If the atheist admits that these arguments are irrelevant (which they inevitably must), then only one reason remains for articles on the evils of Christianity to be posted on sites which purportedly refute the Christian religion. This reason is an underhanded tactic known as poisoning the well. The tactic here is to introduce doubt into the minds of readers without using actual arguments. Emotional appeals are used to persuade individuals to a certain point of view without a single rational argument being used.
Why would an atheist use such arguments?
We have thus arrived at the conclusion that the atheist is either using non sequitir arguments or poisoning the well. If this is the case, then why are these arguments so common?
One reason, I believe, is that it is extremely easy to make these sorts of arguments. All one has to do is research some evil act of Christians past or present, write an emotionally-charged article about said event, and then post said article on a website for all to read. Christians should not be intimidated by these articles since they are completely irrelevant.
A second reason, perhaps, is because such arguments tend to have much success. Emotion often overrides logic. You will notice that in a good deal of Christian-turned-atheist testimonies, emotional reasons had a deciding factor in the individual’s conversion. Ironically, many atheists claim that Christians are guilty of using manipulative emotional arguments in order to win converts. The secular community should take a good look in the mirror before they fling out such accusations at others.
Conclusion:
It is important that Christians know about the evil acts committed by the Church and Christians in the past and into the present. Once again, however, the truth of the resurrection does not stand or fall on the ethical choices of those who have held the title of Christian.
Notes
1. See http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html for an interesting article on the subject.
2. See Paul Toews, Dirk Willems, a Heart Undivided http://www.fresno.edu/affiliation/hc/dirk.htm for Willem’s story.
3. See David Coppege at http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm This site has a growing list of important Christian Scientists of the past and present.
4. Cited from Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith (Zondervan: 2000) p. 219|
Recommended Further Reading:
1. Case for Faith, Chapter 7: Church History is Littered with Oppression and Violence. (Pages 195-221).
——————————————————————————————————————
you forgot to list all the lies of the church such as hell & the rapture. christians are poisoning our childrens minds and i personaly cannot wait for it to be exposed as the evil it is, you all will face christ’s sword.do you actully think jesus, wich is historicaly proven not to be his name anyway, another lie. would approve of this mental visualation that you put your children through. just to keep them fearful? shame on you.
— c oliver Mar 12, 09:56 PM #
are you serious?
christians poisoning our childrens minds?
I would seriously like you to name one child that is actually fearful of God and/or Jesus?
and if you find one, then I want you to get that child psychology evaluated
And I don’t know where you get your information (But I would like to, just so I can disprove it), but I’m pretty sure it’s wrong
— RevDeath Apr 13, 11:39 PM #
After reading the entire article I have come to the conclusion that the 1st post is not only unjustified, but also proves the point of everything said in the article above.
The above comment by coliver is both emotional and unfounded.
If you’re going to try to disprove christainity then maybe you should have sound reasoning behind your comments and actually read the article in which you’re trying to refute
— RevDeath Apr 15, 05:30 PM #
Now I’m an aethiest, but I still love and completely agree with this argument. Cause only the weak would fall back on emotional decisions such as that, without any real backing. What I dislike is how this article seems to lump all athiests together, because no matter what group you look at you will find people who choose their beliefs on emotional decisions such as this. Seriously look at those around who also follow your beliefs, and look at the reasons for which they do believe what they do. There are simply those who are strong in their beliefs and those who are weak, and in my opinion those who are strong in what they believe, no matter what they believe, earn and deserve mutual respect and those who are weak earn and deserve utter contempt. Once again other what I just mentioned there are only a few things that i truly dislike about this argument, though I don’t think it’s anything ground breaking in deciding anybody’s choice of beliefs or disbeliefs. (side comment: I’m not saying I’ve never used these comments, but only when talking to someone who are in themselves weak and just accept what they were raised on without any thought or quetioning.)
— ........? Apr 16, 09:15 AM #
I agree with that comment (although you didn’t really state any reasons for your belief, and I am yet to find a atheist who actually bases their beliefs on anything but emotion. Being unwilling to read novels that are based from a christian prespective or even being unwilling to any research on the topic counts as being emotional) I’m a christian who has read novels based from a atheist prespective, so why is it so hard for a atheist to read a novel from a christian prespective. (by the way above person [I know who you are, but I won’t name you] I’m talking about my brother, not you)
I have been far from growing up only to believe what my parents believe. My mother doesn’t feel the need to teach her children religion (Mainly because she’s too busy with her career to teach her children anything), and my father doesn’t feel the need to pick up the phone and call his children once in a while.
Everything I’ve learned about christianity I’ve learn by myself.
And I’m anything be a biased opinion. I’ve probably been about every religion at least once, but I can say without a hint of doubt that Christianity it the one true religion
— RevDeath Apr 16, 09:32 PM #
I am an agnostic, to clear that up before hand so i am not written off as an “emotional atheist”. This arguement of yours, though a nice try i suppose, is weak and does not hold any weight in my mind, nor should it in the mind of any other reasonably intelligent person. First of all, let me point out your biggest flaw, the in other words non-existent foundation for your ‘arguement’. Christianity is NOT based on history. The bible is not a historically accurate document, as much as you have ‘faith’ in it being just that (by the way faith equates to lack of reason, believing something without needing proof of it, that is true faith; just something to think about). Do you not account for the innacuracy of scribe processes in those ancient times, the possibility of passages being added, removed, changed at will by whomever transcribed the bible? The fact of the matter is that the only “proof” (imagine me making an insulting gesture with those qoutations, that is my intent) of the bibles validity is in itself, which is insane. Now by my understanding, Christians believe not only in God, but the signifigance of Jesus being is son (as said in the bible at least, which i think is obviously neither an accurate or even usable source of historical FACT to anyone with the power to think critically). What do you then say to other religions, who contradict your positions with their own holy texts; their so called words of god? You simply can say, for lack of any further proof, “Because were right”, “Because the Bible is right”, you beg the question, nothing more. And just to comment on some negative side effects of Christianity psycologically, i personally cannot find any outright negative effects through personal experience and observation. Unless you consider a numbing of the mind negative, or the will to be hearded and told what to do for no good reason to be negative as well. This is something Christians seem quite content doing, but if they do so peacefully because they feel that this is the right path in life to take, i emphasize peacefully, with no forcing of belief on others, than i see it as their loss (or gain); i guess thats a matter of opinion. The rest of this page is rediculous, irrelavant information that has been innacurately represented (all atheists only posses the ability to produce emotionally charged critisisms of Christian violence? That is the tip of the iceberg concerning debates over religion, that is that it can produce great evil). In short, have fun turning your kids into brainwashed Jesus lovers, or angry rebels, thats what religion will produce of them. Enjoy sapping the desire for true knowledge and understanding from them, and anxiously replace it with religious dogma and half-truths (at the best). I would say Christians can only make emotional arguements, for they have nothing which else to argue (well, they can peddle their bullcrap to imbiciles, but anyone with half a brain can cut down a theist “arguement” in defense of their religion, and do so with one hand commiting a sin, like punching the clown). If anyone still reads this obscure website, and happens to post after me, i dont give 2 shits about my grammar, i know i speak in runon sentences and have poor spelling, i dont need to be reminded.
— matt Jun 14, 04:31 AM #
Ok, after a smoke and some Mt. Dew, i realize that my previous post dealt more with disregarding Christianity as even worth debating, in terms of its validity and merit. That is not the topic of this particular html whatever, i am almost certain i cannot change the minds of the ‘faithful’ or the ‘believers’. To make a more relavant response, on the question of is Christianity evil?, i think that no is the appropraite answer (but it is followed by a but). BUT, it, like humans, like human creations (religion) has the potential for evil. In the case of its potential, we have seen (heres my overly emotional atheistic response by the way, if thats what you must call it to demerit it in your own head)Christianity, along with many other popular religions realize that potential in the past, present, and surely it will continue to be seen in the future. Greed, lust, desire, and things of this nature also bring about evil in men/women, so i am not singling out your faith, only suggesting you not deny its potential for causing evil. Like i said before, in my opinion i dont think it makes all people who practice it crazy, or ‘evil’, or whatever some might say about the mental effects of Christianity. I will say though that it chisels from them the desire to question, the foundation for developing knowledge and reason. If you make blindly accepting whatever you are told by a certain person to be unchallengable fact, are you not at least in some sense of the word insane? If your pastor, or whatever you call your preachers, informed you a new new testament has been found, and now you must sacrifice animals and babies to god, and mutilate your genetalia, and other absurd things so that you might secure a happy eternal life, would you do so? Dont you (not the specific actions) do this now? Dont you accept what is not proven fact if it were, im guessing only in this area of your life. You demand detailed and accurate data concerning science and mathmatics, but not the foundation for your way of life? This seems strange to me. And in the sense that relgion creates bigotry, there is a kind of evil it can produce. Condeming homosexuals for example, even if just in your mind, is evil in my book. You may pity them, or just look down on them and hope they burn in hell, i cant claim to read your mind, both of these things are negative. Pity is not of generosity, it is of a condescending life view, pity = disgust in terms of religious toleration of alternative lifestyles. In terms of preventing scientific progression, religion, Christianity included is inherintly ‘evil’. You oppose, unless your a very liberal religious folk, in which case i appluad your openmindedness, things like stem cell research. THings that could save countless lives, and improve the lives of many more who are suffering, or know or are related to someone suffering. Try using a Greek God every time you refer to god, see how rediculous it sounds? Thats how it sounds to someone who is not a believer when you speak of your God. Im sure the greeks were just as sure as you that posiedon was ruler of the sea, and zeus would zap there ass with lighting if they didnt kill enough babies, but it turns out they were wrong. The inability to admit possibly fault is ignorant, and dangerous aspect of religion (not to just pick on Christianity, Catholics and Islamic religions included). Youd have us back in the cart and buggy days if you could, thats why your beliefs are viewed as evil, or stupid, irrational, dangerous, ingnorant, (insert negative adjective here) by people who use their brains rather than suppressing them.
— matt Jun 14, 04:55 AM #
Matt,
You criticize my article because you say that I am incorrect about Christianity being based upon history. However, you fail to see the point. Even if, as you say, the historical foundation of Christianity is very sketchy (due to changing stories and innacurate translations and whatnot), Christianity is STILL based upon historical facts. Most importantly, Christianity is based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. You may say the evidence for the resurrection is lacking, but that doesn’t change the fact that the resurrection is the basis of Christianity. Since the resurrection is purportedly an historical event, so Christianity is based upon history.
Next, you accuse me and all Christians of randomly believing everything the Bible says without critical thought. However, this is not necessarily true of all Christians. Many Christians do think critically about the Bible and maintain their belief or come to believe in Christianity. If you approach the New Testament documents as purely historical sources and not as divinely inspired documents, you can still (quite easily) come to believe in the truth of Christianity. For example, I think that the New Testament writings, as historical documents, provide excellent evidence for the resurrection of Christ. We can use scholarly criteria such as the multiple attestation and embarrasment to discover which texts in the Bible are likely to be accurate, and using these criteria we can establish the truth of the resurrection. So I think you are wrong about needing to use blind faith to believe in Christianity.
By the way, you also say that anyone with half a brain can tear down a theistic argument. Well, I presume that you have at least half a brain, so why don’t you read my article on the Cosmological Argument Here and refute it. You can either post some comments or you can establish a debate with me if you like.
Sincerely,
Kyle
— Kyle Deming Jun 16, 01:12 PM #
there is far too much information on this website IT SUCKS we need to do our r,e project and this is not helping
— jeponaliy Jun 26, 04:26 AM #
A sandal-wearing Hebrew carpenter as the son of God? Very prosaic, I always thought. In the time of Yesu, there were many competing godheads, such as Mithras and Ahura Mazda of Zoroastrianism fame. I am an informed atheist, and I suggest that you all purchase and read a book called Rabbi Jesus, as well as anything on modern physics. I will not claim that religion does not help people individually, because it does, but the groupthink it creates is positively delusional . . . but then, reality is only what a majority of people agree upon at any given time.
— Zoroaster Sep 24, 10:00 AM #
Basically you say that because some christians did horrible deeds does not undermine christianity. Perhaps true. However, it brings us to the question, does the world NEED christianity? Remember, all those crusades and witch hunts and tortures and burnings at the stake were done not only in the name of christianity, but actually by people who intensely believed they were doing god’s bidding. They were, as they thought, doing a noble deed, and were absolutely convinced that they were working for the holy trinity. They were not merely doing these things for a selfish cause. They really believed it to be a religious duty. If they were never introduced to the bible or the church, they would not have organised mass torture and witch hunts of women for reasons like “looking unnaturally young.” And remember often it was the pope himself (successor to peter?) who ordered or sanctioned these atrocities. And the world actually believed they were doing pious things. When the head of a religious order does such things, it does damamge the credibility of the religion, though you may argue against it now. The whole world no knows these were atrocities, because the age of enlightenment heralded a new line of thinking. In the days of the crusades people used to argue that witchcraft does exist, giving much the same arguements that modern christians do to justify god. Now if christian teaching didn’t prevail, these atrocities would never have been committed – that’s a fact you cannot refute. There have been no confucian crusades, no atheistic witch hunts, and no instance of an atheist going and torturing someone to death merely for his religious beliefs. So the point I make is that while those attrocities may not disprove christian teachings, they do lead us to ask if religious techings are necessary.
— its me Oct 3, 12:24 PM #
Its me,
First, what do you define as a christian? Do you even realize that they probably are, um, not christians?! Does being “convinced” prove that their actions are right? Scripture does not support such conduct. You claim it “argues” against the credibility of Scripture but these arguments are just an appeal to emotion. Why can’t you just agree with other intellectual atheists?
Does the world need christianity? That’s an irrelevant question. One could ask, do we NEED you or do we really need truth? Necessity doesn’t prove whether one is true or not.
It’s interesting how many people are quick to point out the actions of others but don’t realize the good things that christianity helps in.
Get this straight, it’s not the religion which is at fault but the person himself! Where did you get that the “pope” is the successor of Peter? If you actually read acts, churches was a LOT different back then. Now-days, the catholic church has a “ultimate” authority who has the correct interpretation of Scripture. Where does Scripture say to do this? In fact, it’s the Holy Spirit that helps achieve a correct understanding of the Scriptures.
You wish to criticize christianity but it seems you forget those atheists who commit murder on their side. Even Richard Dawkins, a popular atheist agrees that this has happened. Your arguments don’t hold any value to the truth of christianity.
— Gil Oct 25, 11:29 PM #
翻译
翻译公司翻译公司
北京翻译公司
上海翻译公司
翻译
翻译公司
北京翻译公司
上海翻译公司
翻译公司
翻译论坛
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
北京翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
房屋出租
房屋出租
招聘
上海翻译公司
翻译
翻译公司
翻译
翻译公司
翻译公司
— 翻译公司 Dec 25, 02:17 AM #
As an atheist, I reject this argument outright. Christianity is capable of being harnessed for good or evil. It is a set of hypotheses and directives. One may use it to inflame people to murder, or move them to compassion – and I do not believe that the first was Christ’s intent.
What the argument from Christian Evil DOES address is the claim that Christianity is necessarily a force for good, or that the acts of Christians necessarily carry the weight of a moral God behind them. In other words, it’s a curb against arrogance. A similar argument can be made against blind belief in the inherent goodness of technological progress.
— Paul Apr 23, 11:38 PM #
I will be back! Good work. Very nicely done. Keep up the great work.
— edwin Jun 1, 03:05 PM #
Hello! Good work, Thanks!
— fas15381 Dec 25, 12:29 PM #
One thing that I do notice about Christian apologists is that they often argue from the standpoint of Christianity being the only ‘truth.’ Perhaps this is why they argue that Christianity is based on historical fact while failing to admit the fact that if it were not for Constantine and his favorable treatment of ‘orthodox’ Christianity, Christianity as we know it today and through much of history would look decidedly different or perhaps would not exist at all (keep in mind that Christianity was incredibly diverse before Constantine). I am new to the site and have not read all of the responses, but I am hoping to find more convincing arguments for Christianity. At this point in my life, I only see it as an antiquated means of policing peoples lives.
— Jocephus Dec 26, 09:30 PM #
Jocephus,
Whether the survival of Christianity is dependent upon Constantine or not is immaterial to the point of this article and to my more general claim that Christianity is a religion based on historical facts. Moreover, it should be pointed out that this article is not meant to be a positive defense of Christianity, but rather it is only meant to be a defense of Christianity against the claims of some critics who imply that the evil deeds of Christians undermines the truth of Christianity.
Sincerely,
Kyle.
— Kyle Deming Jan 4, 12:08 AM #
I’m not a big fan of Christianity.
Just because the Christian religion (or several religions, for that matter) isn’t a violent religion doesn’t change the fact that it has caused, and continues to cause lots of violence. So many people say that “oh, those people burning down abortion clinics… they’re not REAL Christians.”. But they are. Just as real as the rest of you. Nobody wants to take responsiblity for them. None of the “good Christians” want to admit that their religion causes violence and conflict. And I think you guys should own it. It’s something that has to be addressed. And I’ve always hated how one of the mail goals of Christianity seems to be to make you feel guilty about existing. “You are all sinners. Repent! Be humbled. Feel bad for having basic desires. Reach for unattainable moral goals, that way you’ll be overwhelmed with inadequacy and insignificance and keep striving for the perfection and self-gratification that, no matter how desparately you work for, will never come. Your feelings of inadequacy are necessary to show respect to God. Only the hope that your feeble attempts at altruism will somehow earn you a place in the eternal kingdom keep you going, and even then your own insecurities and doubts make confidence that you will have a desirable afterlife virtually impossible to achieve”. Whatever floats your boat I guess. My advice to you would be to stop and seriously evaluate the pros and cons of putting your faith and devotion into something that breeds so much hate and guilt.
— Aiyana Jun 23, 07:21 PM #
Aiyana, I think you should take a closer look at Christianity, instead of posting an ill informed argument.
You speak of the Christian afterlife, and how it is,“virtually impossible to achieve.” Seriously, I wish people would do some research before they post comments like this, not knowing what they are talking about.
also you’re doing the same thing that many Americans did in the wake of 911; just like people lumped all Muslims together as terrorists, you lump all of the normal, law abiding Christians in the same boat with the bad eggs who call themselves Christian. We shouldn’t be blamed for others mistakes any more than every Muslim person out there who isn’t a terrorist.
— Dave Dec 7, 09:26 PM #
“I would seriously like you to name one child that is actually fearful of God and/or Jesus?”
I grew up in a fundamental christian family. I am now in therapy for anxiety and all 5 forms of sexual dysfunction along with depression. I wish my parents had not created so much anxiety in my head. Bring a child up to believe a series of dogmas related to religion appears to have emotionally damaged many people. Some joke about being recovering Catholics. Because a child doesn’t have the capacity to think in complex and formal thoughts (See Piaget’s stages of development) religion to a child is about guilt about sin and fear of god watching them and hell. So, my question is, is indoctrination of a child into a belief system wise?
— poisened child Apr 17, 07:49 PM #
This article reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis. “Of all bad men, religious bad men are the worst.” I love the detail you go into when tackling these issues, not only from a logical standpoint, but also from a psychological one.
— BenjiMester Apr 20, 10:38 AM #
A quick note on the process of logic, without wanting to get into the merits of the arguments…
Throughout this essay, you demand strict and convincing evidence of every opposing argument, or it must “be dismissed.”
When you come to defend the Christian argument, you use your own subjective experience as dispositive proof to the contrary.
In other words…
“I am a good Christian” does no more to prove that Christianity is the Truth than “Hitler was a Christian” does to prove that it is evil.
You are right to deny that evidence is proof for the other side, but please don’t fail to see that in your own arguments.
— Jeffrey Apr 20, 09:39 PM #